Introduction

Occasionally the doctrine of the Trinity is described as a "mystery" and
as "incomprehensible." To many thinking persons these terms imply that
this doctrine must be illogical and contradictory. Yet any doctrine held
by so many should be logical, easy to understand and to explain. Further,
a doctrine considered fundamental to the Christian faith should not have
to stand on a relative few verses with debatable vague implications. It
should be clearer than that. We should be able to find extended passages
that demonstrate the point or we should stop claiming it is a fundamental
doctrine. If a doctrine is held with conviction, then adherents should
be able to respond to scriptural challenges simply and logically without
having repeatedly to resort to statements like "it is a mystery" or "God
is beyond our comprehension." While there are clearly many things true
of God that are beyond our comprehension - I still cannot conceive of what
'from eternity' means - but, at the very least, any doctrine that we confidently
hold should not appear to be contradictory.

For example, how do we answer these series of questions:

First Corinthians
15:24-28 shows that after his reign, Christ will be eternally submissive
to his Father. How does this fit into the Trinity doctrine?

First Corinthians
11:3 teaches that the "head" of Christ is God without any temporal
qualification. Does this not imply that Christ is eternally submissive?
Is that how we conceive of Jesus as being God?

Is Jesus the Most High God? Since Revelation
3:12 shows that the Father is the God
of Jesus does this mean
God has a God? How many Gods are there?

What about Hebrews 5:8,
which implies that Jesus had to come to earth to learn obedience? Why would
God have to learn anything?

If God is three persons and if being all-knowing is an essential attribute
of being God why does Mark
13:32 (compare Matthew
24:36) say that only the Father knows the day and hour of the Great
Tribulation but the Son and the Holy Spirit do not?

First Corinthians 8:6
seems to say that the Father is the one to call "God" while Jesus is distinguished
as "Lord." Is this not a contrast between them? Does this not imply that
only
one of them, the Father, can rightfully be called "God"?

Deuteronomy 6:4 says
that there is only ONE God so how can Jesus and his Father both be God?

In what sense is Jesus one with his Father (John
10:30)? Does not the Bible say that Jesus and his Father are two (John
8:17,18)?

All these issues should fit into our model of understanding without having
to push a square peg into a round hole.

I believe it is preferable that a doctrine be based on the most straightforward
reading of a Biblical text without reading something into it. If the straight
reading of a text seems difficult to reconcile with other texts, then this
is not a sound reason to immediately assume it cannot mean what it says.
Some effort should be made to understand all texts without having to allegorize
any. If this sounds hard to do, just think of the following theological
investigation as an 'experiment' where we will accept the texts for what
they say and see if, in the end, we have something that is easy to understand
or whether we have an incomprehensible mystery.

Most Biblical quotations are from the New American Standard (NAS),
but other translations used are: New International Version (NIV),
New
Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and the New Jerusalem Bible
(NJB).

Why attempt to understand
the nature and role of Jesus?

I offer a few reasons for pursuing an understanding of what the Bible says
on this subject.

First:

Matthew 16:13-15

13 Now when Jesus came into the district of
Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, "Who do people say that
the Son of Man is?"
14 And they said, "Some say
John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one
of the prophets."
15 He said to them, "But who
do you say that I am?"

Indirectly, through this scripture, Jesus asks all of us this question:
"Who do you say that I am?" Jesus cares how you answer this.

Second:Jesus' identity as well as his relationship with his Father is important.
Twice in scripture the relationship between the Father and Son is given
as the model for human relationships.

This verse uses the model of the headship of God (the Father) over Christ
as a model for the relationship between husband and wife. To misunderstand
one is to misunderstand the other.

1 Corinthians 11:3

"But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man,
and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ."

The relationship between members of the church, the body of Christ,
is modeled on the attitude of Christ towards his Father. If we do not understand
what the relationship is, we cannot emulate it as we are told to.

Philippians 2:3,5,6

"Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of
mind let each of you regard one another as more important than himself;
5
Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6
who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with
God a thing to be grasped"

Third:Paul chastised the Corinthian congregation for listening to some who
taught a different Jesus (2
Corinthians 11:3,4). We are not told in what way the teaching differed
from the biblical Jesus but it was different from what they had received
from Paul and they were accepting both kinds of teachings.

Apparent contradictions
about "God"

How many gods are there?

If you pick up the Bible and start reading it from the beginning you
immediately read about

(in the biblical languages the term "God/god" is not distinguished
by uppercase or lowercase letters). The Bible indicates these other Gods/gods
are not real but are idols without any connection to real entities, and
would be considered to be imaginary objects of worship.

But some Bible scholars say that the term "god/God" in the original
language can refer to real entities

This suggests that the verses that state there are 'no other gods' mean
that although there are others who can in a limited capacity be called
"god" they are inferior and thus human language allows it to be said 'there
is no God but one' because these

Obviously an idol representing an imaginary god (1
Corinthians 8:4; Galatians
4:8) cannot do what Yahweh can do - like make the universe from nothing
- but any other real "god" (such as angels) must be a lesser god
who cannot do what Yahweh alone can do. So we have moved from the general
statement 'there is no God but one' that appears to contradict other more
detailed Bible verses to a more precise statement 'there is only one
God who made all things' thus resolving this apparent contradiction.

This seems to explain all issues so far, except for one verse that could
potentially have a conflicting thought:

How many universe Makers are there?

"Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image,
according to Our likeness; . . . .' God created man in
His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female
He created them." - Genesis
1:26,27

The One God speaks and refers to "Us" making man. Yet we saw above that
only one God made man (Job
31:15; Malachi 2:10;
Acts
17:24,26). Further, the "Us" has a single image or likeness
(the Hebrew words for "image" and "likeness" are singular). Then the event
is repeated but "Us" disappears and the text says "God" made/created
man in his own image (again, singular).

Does "Let Us make . . . " mean all of the "Us" had a significant role
in the 'making'? Why is "Us" not mentioned in the second phrase, only "God"
being stated? Is the term "Us" equivalent to "God"? Some proposed explanations
are:

1) The "Us" refers to one God who made all things but it does not mean
'us' as it does in common English. It is not plural but has some grand
metaphorical meaning.
2) The "Us" refers to one God who made all things, it is plural (as
it is in English) but somehow refers to only one God.
3) The "Us" refers to "God" plus other observer(s) who make little
or no contribution to the 'making' process. The reference to "Let Us make
. . . " does not mean, as it does in English, that 'we' jointly made anything.
Thus it is sufficient to simply say "God" did it, ignoring the other(s)
who made no contribution to the 'making'.
4) The "Us" refers to "God" plus at least one other 'Maker' who, for
some unexplaned reason, is ignored in all other texts that describe the
'making' of man.Thus the idea that only one 'someone' made man is a misunderstanding
of all the above mentioned texts.

None of the above explanations appears to be natural or obvious. If
one prefers to reach conclusions through logic based on texts found entirely
within Scripture, then chosing any of the above explanations will pose
a challenge. So right from the start of reading the Bible it appears we
have encountered a difficulty. But it gets even more difficult.

If we move on to the New Testament we encounter the gospel account of
John which begins with phrases that echo the beginning of Genesis. Here
we learn the identity of someone who could be included in "Us":

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being
through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into
being. . . . And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw
His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace
and truth."

The "Word," (identified in verse 14
as being Jesus) is said (twice!) to have been in the beginning with God
and states that everything came into existence through the agency of him.
So not only was he involved in making man, he made everything that has
ever come into existence.

For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill
Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling
God His own Father, making Himself equal with God. Therefore Jesus
answered and was saying to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can
do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing;
for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like
manner. For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things
that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him greater works than
these, so that you will marvel. For just as the Father raises the dead
and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes.
"For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to
the Son, so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father.
He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him."

While it does not say here specifically that Jesus made all things, it
says the Father shows him all the things that he does and the Son (Jesus)
does everything the Father shows him and he does it the same way the Father
does them, thus he makes himself equal with God. No wonder the Jews sought
to kill him.

While it may have appeared to be a small issue to explain Genesis 1:26,27
this is a much more difficult task. There is no ambiguity that this Jesus
was with God, watching what he does and duplicating all that he saw. How
could God have been alone when making the universe and the only God who
can do this?

It does not help to resolve this by claiming that Jesus was not a "god"
when he was with God making the universe because, as we saw above, the
Bible repeatedly states that there is no one, no anything, who can do what
Yahweh, the Creator, alone can do.

Now to complicate matters, we find texts asserting that Jesus was, on
rare occasions, called "God/god" (Isaiah
9:6,7 / Luke 1:30-33;
John
20:28 , also see the preamble in 1
Timothy 1:17 referring to the Only Godwho is King eternal,
immortal and invisible and is to be honored forever while at the end
of the book, in 6:14-16,
is a parallel reference to Jesus as being the OnlySovereignKing
who alone is immortal, cannot be seen and is to to be honored
forever).

So now there is a new problem. The previous discussion made it clear
that although there were other entities, either imagined or real, who could
be called 'god' in some sense, these could not make the universe as the
One God did, nor did they share in it. Even if these 'gods' are real, either
angelic or demonic, they are vastly inferior to the One God who made the
universe. However the above verses introduce us to a person who made the
universe, is called 'God' in some sense, was with God when the universe
was made, is honored like God is and is very much like God. How do we resolve
this?

If Jesus were a god but not the same God as the true God (Jeremiah 10:10,11)
then it would be wrong even to say the name of Jesus (Exodus 23:13) (Deuteronomy
11:16; 18:20; Judges 2:19; 2 Kings 17:35; )

Various explanations

The chart below explains in a graphical
form five different theological viewpoints. Each belief-system will
say that Jesus is God but they differ in the details. The answers to three
questions distinguish each group and those answers are displayed in the
tree-graph below. The three questions are:

1) The Father and Son, when counted, are how many Gods?2) The Father and Son are counted as having how many Minds?3) If they are two distinct Minds ('Persons'), what is the positional
relationship between the Father and the Son?

In each colored box below are two links, each leading to text further
down into this article. One link leads to a summary "for" the view - giving
the reasoning that supports the position - while the second link leads
to a summary "against" the position. Under each of the five views the summary
adds a comment regarding the Holy Spirit.

These
five
different belief-systems all hold that Jesus is in some sense 'God'. They say the Father and Son are . . .

The Father is God,
Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God. Jesus is the Father and the Father
is the Holy Spirit. There is only ONE God, one Mind, who relates to
humans in one of three ways. This can be illustrated as a man who is
a father, a son and a husband.

The Father is God, Jesus is
God and the Holy Spirit is God. Jesus is NOT the Father and the Father
is NOT the Holy Spirit so there are three distinct Minds. Yet these three
distinct Minds constitute only ONE God. They are all equal in nature. None
is above or subordinate to the other.

The Father is God, Jesus is
God and the Holy Spirit is God. Jesus is NOT the Father and the Father
is NOT the Holy Spirit so there are three distinct Minds. Yet these three
distinct Minds constitute only ONE God. They are all equal in nature but
the
Son and the Holy Spirit are eternally (and voluntarily!) functionally
subordinate to the Father.

Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit each have the same essence. They are three Gods but
the church's primary focus is on ONE God, Jesus.

The Father is the
Most High God while
Jesus is a second, inferior and created God.
The Holy Spirit is not a distinct Mind but rather is the Father's Power
or Active Force.

Definitions and misunderstood labels

For clarity in the rest of this article it is essential to define how I
use the term 'person'. By this I mean any entity
that has intelligence and is capable of rational thought and making decisions
(having "will"). If two entities each have distinct decision making processes
they are necessarily distinct persons. A person can refer to self ("I")
and others ("you").

The label 'Trinity' is often associated with a variety of concepts
regarding God and there are other doctrines, with other labels,
proposing to describe the nature of God as taught in the Bible. As a result,
some persons claim to believe in the Trinity doctrine and yet their understanding
of it contradicts the historic definition. Others may describe a belief
that sounds very close to the historic doctrine of the Trinity and yet
were unaware that their theology could be considered Trinitarian. For this
reason I need to list the various definitions that pervade the New Testament-based
religions:

The various beliefs can be generally categorized like this

Trinitarian - The term 'God' refers to the nature that is shared
among three distinct eternal persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit. Within this foundational view there are differing sub-views:

Some adherents would say that these three persons have always been equal
in position and authority. (Egalitarian)

Others would say that the Son, the Word (Jesus), was temporarily in subjection
to the Father while on earth.

Still others hold that the Son and the Holy Spirit are both eternally -
from eternity to eternity - functionally subordinate to the Father. (Complementarian)

All these views are usually labeled as representing the Trinity
doctrine, so-called because the three persons ("Tri") are in unity,
all having the nature of "God".

The term 'God' refers to the one eternal person that manifests Himself
to mankind in three different modes, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. An illustration
might be that of one man who is viewed in three different ways, to one
he is a father, to another a husband and to another a son. This view is
often labeled as Modalism or Oneness.

Others believe that the term 'God' refers only to the one eternal person
known as the Father. The Son is not 'from eternity' like the Father. The
Holy Spirit is generally regarded as some kind of a spiritual force or
power, not a distinct person. These believers, sometimes called 'Arians'
after the prominent third century teacher
Arius, hold that the Son is a created angel that came to earth as God's
representative to save mankind.

Another view, not discussed in this article, are the 'Socinians'
who hold that Jesus began his existence as a man whom God later promoted
and exalted to heaven.

In chart form:

Concept:

Modalism

Egalitarian-Trinitarian

Complementarian-Trinitarian

Arian

Is Jesus (i.e., the Word of John 1:1) Deity?

yes

yes

yes

yes

Is Jesus' heavenly Father Deity?

yes

yes

yes

yes

How many persons are signified by the Word and his Father?

one

two

two

two

How many Deities are signified by the Word and his Father?

one

one

one

two

Is the Holy Spirit a person?

yes

yes

yes

no, rather a force that flows from the person of Father.

Is the Holy Spirit a person, distinct from the Father?

no

yes

yes

no

How many persons are signified by the Word, the Father and the Holy
Spirit?

one

three

three

two

How many Deities are signified by the Word, the Father, and the Holy
Spirit?

one

one

one

two

Can the Word be properly identified as the "One God" of the Old Testament?

yes

yes

yes

no

Does the Word have a functionally subordinate role in comparison to
the Father?

no

no

yes

yes

The following article presents the Complementarian-Trinitarian position
as I understand it. I find that it fits with the majority of the Scriptures
taking the most natural reading.

A brief presentation

Before proceeding to the details, here is a brief explanation of this
view:

The Trinitarian concept differs from the other views primarily in the
idea that three persons can be (and must be!) understood to be only ONE
God. This concept is roughly described by some as a "composite being".
Composite beings are not unknown in Scripture (see
below for a list) and one example is examined here:

Note that while the term "servant" is singular, the reference "witnesses"
is plural. So in one sense the referent is singular, and in another sense,
plural. If one were to hold strictly to what it says here then one would
day that God has only one servant but that servant is a composite being,
composed of many witnesses. In Isaiah 49:3-7; (compare 50:10) the
term "servant" switches between two meanings, one reference to a composite
being and another to a single person, the messenger chosen by God. Do we
conclude that the messenger is himself the entire nation of Israel? No.
Do we concluded that God has more than one servant? No.

David was identified as God's servant (Isaiah
37:35; Psalm 89:20)
and his son Solomon was God's servant (1
Kings 3:7). Does this mean that God had more than one servant?
If we fold in the view of Isaiah
43:10 the answer is no. When Solomon refers to David, his father,
as a servant (1 Kings 3:7), must we necessarily conclude that
Solomon cannot also be called "servant"? No. Or must we conclude that Isaiah
43:10conflicts with the Solomon calling David
"servant"? Again, no. For if we view all servants of God throughout time
as comprising the one composite "servant" of God, there is no contradiction.
So while this does sound odd, that is part of the flexibility of human
language that God has granted us.

Even though the concept of a composite being is found in Scripture,
why do some believe that this necessarily describes the nature of God?
There are many scriptures that can be referenced but the basic reason is
this:

Scripture states that the "One God" of the Old Testament has some attributes
that no other God has. We will also see that Scripture states that the
Word, Jesus, has some of these same attributes. Most significant is that
the One God is said to be the One Creator or Maker of the universe yet
the Word also is ascribed this attribute.

Isaiah 44:24 says God
is the maker of all things, he made them by himself, all alone. Isaiah
44:6-8 has God repeatedly saying there is no God besides "Me", and asks
if there is anyone like "Me" (also see Isaiah
45:5,6,14,18,21,22 and Psalm
86:8,10; 89:6,7; 113:5). Isaiah
46:9 repeats that there is no other God and answers the previous question
by stating that there is no one like "Me". Psalm 102:12-27 describe the
LORD, "my God", as being the one who made the heavens
and the earth.

As we now consider the supporting verses showing that Jesus has these
attributes, we should address the Arian counter-claim that the Bible applies
these prestigious attributes only in a representative sense, that is, when
a speaker makes a prestigious claim he is in reality only speaking as a
representative with his own identity being totally subsumed and transparent.
For example in Genesis 44:4-10
Joseph commands his house steward to speak a command in his name. In verse
10 the steward speaks just as if he were Joseph and refers to the command
that all guilty persons were to become "my" slave (rather than 'my Lord's
slave'). Some see a similar case of such representative speech in Genesis
22:15,16 where the angel of the LORD
says "By Myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, .
. ."

But as we will now see, the supporting verses do not have a person
speaking as a representative but rather these verses have third parties
applying these prestigious attributes directly to Jesus.

Above we saw the claim that God made the heavens and the earth and no
one else is even like him. Yet Psalm
102:25-27, referenced above, is quoted in Hebrews
1:10-12 and those same creative acts are applied to Jesus. To
whom are these words of instruction written? To gentiles or pagans? No,
to Jews, those persons most familiar with Isaiah. Note the context of Hebrews
1:2,3 where it again asserts that the Son (Jesus) made the universe
but further teaches that he is the exact copy of "His" (Majesty's) nature.
Since Isaiah (and Psalms) clearly state that there is no one else like
the One God, the Only God, who made the universe alone, all by himself,
would the Jewish audience conclude that these statements in Hebrews
1:2,3,10-12 contradict the Bible? These claims are uniquely true
for the God of the Old Testament yet they are ascribed to the Son, Jesus.

How do we resolve this apparent contradiction? These statements were
not made in a representative sense so they cannot be used to resolve this.If
we take the words as they are, and as being true, Jesus must be that One
God who has no equal. The Modalist response is to insist that the
Word IS the Father, the Majesty. But as we saw in Hebrews 1:3, the
Son cannot be the Majesty for he sits at the right hand of the Majesty.
Thus we are left with the Trinitarian model, that just as Solomon and David
were individually witnesses (of God) and simultaneously in the one
composite being, "my servant", the Son and the Majesty are two persons
within in the composite One God. Each can be appropriately addressed as
God (just as David and Solomon could each be addressed as "servant"), yet
there are not two Gods (nor are there two servants), but only one.

Challenges to understanding the Trinity doctrine

Some objections to the Trinity doctrine are based on specific verses and
those objections are more appropriately discussed towards the end of this
article, after the foundation for the Trinity is presented. However
some hurdles to understanding the Trinity doctrine are based on an overview
of Scripture as a whole or are conceptual difficulties. These objections
need to be addressed now.

Why Did Jesus Never say 'I Am
God'?

Objection:

If believing that Jesus is God is fundamental to Christianity, why
did Jesus not teach this in a clear manner by simply saying 'I am God'?

The answer becomes apparent when considering a parallel question. Most
Christians would say a belief that Jesus is the "Christ" is a fundamental
belief. Then why did he not say this directly and clearly by simply saying
'I am the Christ?' In examining Jesus' teachings we find that only rarely
did he say things that sounded like an admission to being the Christ (John
4:25,26; Mark 14:61,62;
Matthew
26:63-64;
Luke 22:67-70)
and he hesitated to say so openly (John
10:24, 25, 37, 38; Luke 22:67).
When anyone did conclude that he was the Christ, he generally did not want
those persons to tell others (Luke
4:41; Matthew 16:13-20;
Mark
3:11-12;
Mark 8:27-30;
Luke
9:18-21). Instead of identifying himself by plain statements, Jesus
preferred letting his spiritual teachings and his works identify him (John
5:36; 14:10,11).

But because most people had misconceptions about what to expect of the
Christ, they did not accept him as such (John
7:27,40-43; 12:34;
Luke
23:39). They were puzzled about who he was and not many believed him
to be the Christ (John 1:41;
7:31,40,41;
11:26,27;
Matthew
16:13-16;
27:17,22).
Does this mean that it is logical to conclude that Jesus could not be the
Christ simply because he did not specifically say he was the "Christ" and
because only a few others said he was? No.

So summarizing . . .

Why did many Jews doubt Jesus was the Christ?

Jesus did not directly claim to be the Christ.

They misunderstood the implications of the title 'Christ', leading to false
expectations.

What are some reasons to conclude that Jesus was the Christ?

The claims made by Jesus imply that he was the Christ.

The works performed by Jesus imply that he was the Christ.

Persons close to Jesus professed him to be the Christ.

I believe that the same situation exists regarding the belief that Jesus
is 'God'.

Today many doubt that Jesus is God because . . .

Jesus did not directly claim to be God.

They misunderstand the implications of the title 'God' leading to false
expectations.

But many today believe that Jesus is God because . . .

The claims made by Jesus imply that he was God.

The works performed by Jesus imply that he was God.

Persons close to Jesus professed him to be God

.

How Can Two (Or More) Persons Be One God?

Objection:

One plus one plus one makes three, not one. If the concept of the Trinity
is truly taught in the Bible, then it should be understandable. But this
idea of three persons being one God sounds incredible.

Genesis 2: "24 For this reason a man shall
leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall
become one flesh."

Jesus said:

Mark 10 " 6 But from the beginning of creation, God
made
them male and female. 7For this cause a man shall leave
his father and mother, 8 and the two shall become one
flesh; consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh."

The first human couple created by God had the same human nature but because
one was the decision-maker and the other was to be in perfect subjection
(1
Corinthians 11:3), they were one flesh (Genesis
2:24), even before they attempted to procreate. Further emphasizing
their oneness Jesus added "they are no longer two." So it is NOT that they
were primarily two and in some less significant way also considered to
be "one". No, for Jesus emphasized that they were NOT to be regarded as
"two" any longer.

What is also significant is noting the name that God gave to his human
creations. The man is called "man" (or "Adam" in Hebrew) in Genesis
2:7,20 but this is apparently more than just a reference to his nature
since it served as a name (Luke
3:38; Romans 5:14).
But the woman does not receive a distinctive name until Genesis
3:20after she sins. Now note Genesis
5:1,2 where we learn that the woman had already been named at the time
of her creation.

Genesis 5: " 1 This is the book of the generations of Adam.
In the day when God created man [Hebrew 'Adam'], He made him in
the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female,
and he blessed
them and named them Man [Hebrew 'Adam'] in
the day when they were created."

This is not bad grammar. At the time God created the first two humans they
were both, together, named "Man", which is "Adam" in Hebrew. Thus,
a singular name was used to address two persons. So although the name "Adam"
signified one person (Genesis
2:20), the first human male, the name also signified the one human
couple. This is the way it remained until the woman went off on her own,
acted independently, and broke God's law. As long as the couple lived as
one flesh, as God intended, they were jointly named "Adam." But at the
moment that the woman made her own decisions as to what was right and wrong
she was given her own distinctive name, "Eve".

Since Genesis 2:23,24
declares the couple to be one flesh prior to their procreation, their oneness
is not dependent on marital relations. Verse 23 clarifies by stating that
Eve was made from Adam and was of the same flesh and bone. This is
helpful in understanding why they are said to be one. Jesus adds in Mark
10:6 that their oneness had to do with the commitment of marriage between
the two of them. As a couple they were to behave as one entity. If Eve
had lived where she liked and made all her own decisions it is hard to
see how they would still be "one flesh" as God had intended. For them to
behave as one entity, there would necessarily be one and only one person
handling the role of final decision-maker with the other person taking
the role of being a cooperative helper.

Further, although the woman was to be submissive, this does not mean
she was inferior. She was not a monkey nor was she to be a separate independent
human. She was to be honored just as her husband (Exodus
20:12). She had the same nature as her head, her husband. She was not
more or less human than he. She was made from Adam's rib so must have had
the same genetic nature. He was the male gender and she was the female
gender of the same humanity yet each had a different role. They were distinct
persons but they were not to be viewed as being separated, for they were
"no longer two."

The same concept of oneness is true for the Father, the Son and the
Holy Spirit. They are all Deity. They have the same essential attributes
of immortality, the authority to judge and give life, are credited with
making the universe, and their glory is one. Although the Son is submissive,
he is to be honored just as much as the Father (John
5:23). However, they are all distinct persons. Generally we do not
say they are 'separate' since the Father is always with the Son (John
8:29; 14:10; 16:32)
except on one occasion when the Holy Father separated from the Son who
bore all the sins of all mankind, living and dead (Matthew
27:46). When Yahweh, the One True God, spoke in the Old Testament,
he usually spoke for "us," the three persons of the Trinity (Isaiah
6:1-10 Yahweh; John 12:36-43
Son; Acts 28:25-27 Holy
Spirit). At times the name "Yahweh" distinguishes the Father from the Son
(Psalm 110:1) but at other
times Jesus has the name of Yahweh (John
17:6,11,12). Each person has a different role or function in the universe.
One person, the Father, is the source of all authority and decisions, the
Son is the perfect agent who carries out the one will better than any angel
could, the Holy Spirit gives spiritual gifts.

The above reasoning shows it is biblically possible for two (or more)
distinct persons to be viewed as one entity. So as an aid to discussing
this further, when two or more persons behave as one person or they can
be collectively perceived as one person we will call this unified entity
a "composite being".

Does the term "God" refer to a person,
a composite being, a nature or all three?

Objection:

The concept of a 'Composite Being' sounds fabricated and unbiblical.
The biblical texts always portray "God" as a person, not as a conglomerate.
The concept of a 'Composite Being' is foreign to the Bible.

While the above illustration of Adam and Eve may not impress one as
being a clear reference to a 'composite being' there are other biblical
examples.

The Corinthian congregation was included in that bride for Paul addressed
them saying (2
Corinthians 11:2):

"For I am jealous for you with
a godly jealousy; for I betrothed you to one husband, so
that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin."

Here the Greek 'you' is plural while 'virgin' is singular. Although Paul
was not a member of that congregation, and distinguished himself from them
("I . . . you"), yet he was not thereby excluding himself from being a
member of the "virgin" or bride. However it is not appropriate to say Christ
has many brides, for the Scriptures speak of only one bride. This illustrates
how one person who is part of a composite being could also speak to another
person (or persons) and address them as that composite being. This helps
in understanding John 17:3
(commented on elsewhere in this article).

>>>>>>>> Aquila and Priscilla: Acts 18: Aquila would say Priscilla was
his bride. How many brides did Jesus have? One. Aquila was her head. So
they were distinct with unequal roles, yet both within the One Bride. Aquila
could say 'this is my bride yet we are both within the One Bride of Christ.

The Heavenly Woman

The Heavenly woman described in Revelation
12:1,2,5 is variously understood but is often thought to refer to the
nation of Israel (Genesis 37:9;
Romans
9:3-5). This woman is portrayed as a person yet is a composite being.

The nation of Israel split after the reign of Solomon's son into two nations,
a northern and southern kingdom. They are portrayed as two women in Ezekiel
chapter 23.

The Jewish nation and the Christian church.

The Jewish nation is likened to the woman Hagar while the Christian church
is likened to Sarah in Galatians
4:24-26.

Satan / all demons

In Matthew 12:24-26
Satan is spoken of as being both an individual spirit-person AND
as the collective of all demons, the house of Satan (see also Luke
11:15-18, Mark 4:15,
Romans
16:20 ; Mark 3:26; ).
Jesus was accused of using the power of Satan (the individual leader of
all demons) against a specific demon who was a member of the house of Satan.
In his response he used the phrase "Satan against Satan". In this phrase
is a reference to a person, "Satan" alongside a reference to a composite
being, also called "Satan", representing all spirit creatures who had rebelled
against God.

The concept of a composite being is not foreign to Scripture. God's
people in the Old and New Testament are portrayed as composite beings,
God's Woman and the Lamb's bride are manifested as composite beings and
the Devil himself is referred to as a composite being.

How can the term "God" take different meanings in
the same sentence?

Objection:

The Trinitarian claim that the term "God" can have any one of three
different meanings, even in a single Bible passage, sounds fabricated and
inconsistent. How can "God" apply to a person, a 'composite being' and
a 'nature'?

From Genesis 3:20 it would seem that the woman was not called "Eve" until
after their sin. Then from Genesis 5:1,2 we see the man and woman were
both called "Man" until their sin. As the text says, they were one flesh.
So, was the woman called "a Man?" No, she was not a man. So does the Bible
imply that she was called "the Man?" No, she wa s certainly not THE man,
her husband was THE man. But the text does say she was named "Man." Now
consider this:

'In the garden was the Woman, and the Woman was with the Man and the
Woman was Man.'

THis sentence is understandable if we view the first occurrence of 'Man'
as referring to a specific person but the second occurrence of 'Man' as
referring to their common nature (Genesis
5:2), rather than to a specific person.

John 1 " 1 In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with
God,
and the Word was God."

Likewise, John 1:1 is saying that in the beginning the Word
was (already) with the person who is commonly referred to as "God", namely
the Father, who holds the supreme authoritative position. The next portion
of the verse adds that the Word had the essential nature of being God.
This is not a mystery nor is it incomprehensible.

Further note that the reference to Adam and Eve could not read:

'In the garden was the Woman, and the Woman was with the Man and the
Woman was a Man.'

nor could it read ' . . . the Woman was the Man.'
For Eve was neither a male nor was she THE Man. But she 'was Man' because
she had the nature of humanity. Likewise it would be incorrect to say 'the
Word was a God' or say 'the Word was THE God'.
The only proper statement is "the Word was God."

"The Lord is my helper, I will not be afraid. What will man
do to me?"

This is not a reference to some specific man, neither "a man" nor "the
man" but rather to mankind in general. It could either be a singular reference
or it could refer to a collection of humans. In a sense this is a reference
to a composite being. Now substitute the term "God" for "man" in Hebrews
13:6 (compare 1 Samuel 22:3)
and ask 'What will God do to me?' or 'What will God do for me?' Just
as 'man' could refer to a man it could also refer to the collection of
all humans, similarly the term "God" could refer to a single person or
to a collective "God."

The biblical references to "God" are used
like a name, distinct from Jesus

Objection:

If Jesus is "God" why do some verses contrast "God" as distinct from
Jesus?

John 1 " 1 In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God,
and the Word was God."

The biblical references to "God" sound more like
a person than a composite Being

Objection:

If Jesus is "God" why is there no direct unqualified reference to Jesus
as being God as there is for the Father?

Although the above illustration clarifies the concept of how two persons
can be "one" in another sense what does this mean for the term "God"? Can
we read the Bible and discern that the term "God" is used in all cases
(or in the majority of cases) as a composite being? Or, since the basis
for the above reasoning was centered around the concept of the one human
nature that Adam and Eve shared, do we find that "God" usually refers to
a nature? Or is the term "God" used in contexts that most naturally appear
to describe a solitary person? Is there any consistency? If not, then does
this imply that the Trinity doctrine is a unnecessarily contrived invention?

If the term "God" primarily refers to the Trinity, a Composite Being
and not a Person, why do most references to "God" sound like references
to a person?
(Matthew 4:4;
23:22)

Often we find references to the term "God" being used like a name and
occasionally in distinction to Jesus. For example in
John
1:1 is a reference to the Son being with "God" and then being
"God". How can the Son be with an entity and then BE that same entity?
As mentioned above the answer is that in this verse, the first reference
to "God" is to a person while the second reference is to the nature
of God. This is

Grammatically either rendering is supported by some scholars. But if you
think about the meaning of the verse, which reading makes more sense? The
context of this chapter of Hebrews contrasts the Son with the angels but
shows the parallels with the Father. Is the point of this verse to say
that the Son's throne is forever and that he can be called (as in Isaiah
9:6) or is the point to say that Almighty God is the throne on which the
Son sits forever? If the correct rendering is "O God . . ." then this is
a case where "God" is used of the Son in the same fashion as that used
of the Father.

But if Jesus is "God" why are there references that seem to make distinctions
between God and Jesus? As mentioned at the beginning of this article, the
relationship between Jesus and his Father can be likened to the relationship
between Eve and Adam.

"1 This is the book of the generations of Adam.
In the day when God created man(Hebrew "Adam"),
He made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them
male and female, and He blessed them and named themMan(Hebrew
"Adam") in the day when they were created." (NIV)

Who is meant by:

1. generations of Adam

Is this the generations of one man or of two humans?

2. God created man

Literally this reads "God created Adam". So does "Adam" refer to one
man or two humans or a nature?

3. He made him

This is likely a reference to one person, the man.

4. He created them

This is a reference to two persons.

5. named them

Likewise this refers to two persons.

6. named them Man

The Hebrew word here for "Man" is "Adam". How can it be that both of
"them" were named Adam?

7. when they were created

Two persons were created.

The text here switches back and forth referring to creating a single
person (1 and 3) and two persons (4, 5, 6, 7) and one reference that could
be either (2). So when reading this one could conclude that Eve is not
included in the reference to God making "him" yet Eve is included in the
reference to God creating "them". The point is that in biblical language
terms can in one

All the references to Jesus being God are really only rare examples of
a representative being viewed as the source.

Objection:

Could the belief that Jesus is "God" in reality be a case of mistaken
identity? Is it possible that Jesus is really only God's representative?

It is possible to refer to a prophet and say "God has visited us" (Luke
7:16). This suggests that any reference to "God" could in reality be
a reference to God's representative. So some might conclude that all references
to Jesus as "God" are only made in the sense of Jesus being God's representative.
But, as we examine the evidence in the rest of the article you will notice
that the reasoning is rarely based on just the use of the title "God",
it is more based on the attributes attached to Jesus. No prophet, no angel
had the attributes given to Jesus. Especially as you read the first 2 chapters
in Hebrews, notice how the reasoning clearly says "the Son does thus
and so but no angel has ever done thus and so". You would not find
those kind of statements repeated if the Son were only an angelic representative.
Yet if the Son did indeed have the attributes and nature of "God" then
the Son would most certainly be the representative of God. So being God's
representative does not determine the conclusion of whether Jesus does
or does not have the nature of God.

If Jesus is to be esteemed and honored as "God," and there is only
ONE such God, how can it also be true that Jesus is submissive to God?
Is God submissive to God? How is it that God is greater than God? How can
it be said that God has a God over him? This all seems a logical impossibility
and any supposed evidence for the Trinity must in reality be a misunderstanding
of Scripture.

Recall our example of a marriage and how a couple is no longer to be
viewed as two but only as one flesh (Mark
10:8,9). That would apply for Abraham and Sarah. They were one flesh,
no longer two, yet Sarah called Abraham "my Lord" (Genesis
18:12; 1 Peter 3:6)
yet was one flesh with that Lord. So the difference in rank has no bearing
on their being one.

Consider again the above illustration of Adam and Eve. Imagine that
Adam and Eve had remained sinless and had a child named Cain. Suppose we
could ask Cain 'Who is your boss (or head)?' Cain would probably reason
that since Eve was in perfect submission and one flesh with Adam, both
his parents were his boss. He would say 'My boss is Adam and Eve.' If we
asked 'Then how many bosses do you have?' He would reason that since Adam
and Eve were ONE flesh and no longer two, the authority was 'one', so he
would say 'One boss.'

We might object and ask Cain if because Adam and Eve were two persons,
does this not mean there were two bosses, a 'big' boss and a 'little' boss?
He then would answer 'No, for Adam and Eve were to be in perfect unity
with perfect communication, acting as one entity with one decision-maker,
one will. No, there was only one boss, the two persons together named "Adam"
(or "Man"). They could not be two bosses for they were "no longer two."
'

Next suppose we asked Eve. 'Do you have a boss?' She would reason that
since she was in perfect submission, and Adam was her head, she would say
'Yes' she had an earthly boss, Adam. Then how many human bosses are there
in the Garden of Eden, one or two? The answer is 'one'. Yet if Eve is a
boss and she has a boss over her, does this not mean one plus one
are two bosses? No, as long as Eve was ONE flesh with her head, Adam and
she was not acting on her own initiative there was only one boss.
However if Eve were not ONE flesh with Adam, if she acted on her
own initiative, then there would be two bosses and poor Cain would get
confused about whom to obey. So rather than viewing this as 'one
boss plus one boss,' we should view it as 'one boss times one completely
submissive boss' equals one boss.

This explains why Jesus is eternally submissive to his Father as his
head yet is still one with his Father (John
10:30). Just as Eve was a boss and yet also
had a boss, Jesus
is called God in Scripture (Isaiah
9:6; John 20:28) and
yet he had a God. Likewise, just as Adam and Eve were one flesh and were
to behave as one unit and thus there was only one boss in the garden, in
heaven there is just one authority, one God.

Note these references showing how recognized Bible scholars describe
the submission of Jesus.

In Essential Truths of the Christian Faith by R.C. Sproul in Chapter
26 ("The Subordination of Christ") it says: "A subordinate is not a peer;
a subordinate is not on an equal level of authority with his or her super-ordinate.
The prefix sub- means "under" and super- means "over" or
"above." When we speak of the subordination of Christ we must do so with
great care. Our culture equates subordination with inequality. But in the
Trinity all members are equal in nature, in honor, and in glory. All three
members are eternal, self-existent; they partake of all aspects and attributes
of deity. In God's plan of redemption, however, the Son voluntarily
takes on a subordinate role to the Father. It is the Father who sends the
Son into the world . . . As they are the same in glory, the Father and
the Son are also of one will. . . . By submitting Himself to the perfect
will of His Father, Jesus did for us what we were unwilling and unable
to do for ourselves. . . . As the subordinate One, He saved a people who
had been insubordinate. . . . Although Christ is equal to the Father in
terms of His divine nature, He is subordinate to the Father in His role
in redemption. Subordination does not mean 'inferior.' "

In Systematic Theology (by A. H. Strong, 1953 ed. p. 342) it says:
"The subordination of the person of the Son to the person of the Father
or in other words an order of personality, office, and operation which
permits the Father to be officially first, the Son second, and the Spirit
third, is perfectly consistent with equality. Priority is not necessarily
superiority. The possibility of an order, which yet involves no inequality,
may be illustrated by the relation between man and woman. In office man
is first and woman second, but woman's soul is worth as much as man's:
see 1 Cor. 11:3 . . . We frankly recognize an eternal subordination of
Christ to the Father, but we maintain at the same time that this subordination
is a subordination of order, office, and operation, not a subordination
of essence."

Commenting on 1 Corinthians
15:28, F. Godet says: "Subordination was therefore, according to him,
in harmony with the essential relation of the Son to the Father, in His
Divine and human existence."

H. A. W. Meyer, in his Commentary on the New Testament, says this about
1
Corinthians 11:3: "He to whom Christ is subordinate is God . . . where
the dogmatic explanation resorted to, that Christ in His human nature only
is meant . . . , is un-Pauline. Neither again, is his voluntary subjection
referred to, but . . . the objective and, notwithstanding His essential
equality with God (Philippians 2:6), necessary subordination of the Son
to the Father in the divine economy of redemption."

(Also see the paper "The Eternal Subordination of the Son: An Apologetic
Against Evangelical Feminism" presented at the Evangelical Theological
Society November 18, 1995 by Stephen D. Kovach.)

A Simple Presentation Of The
Trinity

When explaining the Trinity to someone who rejects the concept, it is often
helpful to first give a short and simple Biblical line of reasoning. This
presentation hinges primarily on one scripture but a couple of others can
be added for more support.

Take a piece of paper and draw the illustration below. Write as title
at the top "Everything that has ever existed . . .". Next, draw a line
starting from the top, just below the title, to the bottom dividing it
in half. On the left, slightly below the top, write: ". . . Those things
that were brought into existence. . ." On the right, at the top, write:
". . . everything else . . . the things that have always existed." There
are only two categories, every thing that has ever existed was either made
or it was not made. Either it was brought into existence or it was always
here.

Next, on the left half, starting down below the second title, draw another
line dividing it into half again. Thus you now have three columns or lists.
At the top of the left-most list write the words ". . . through the agency
of Jesus" and at the top of the middle list write ". . . not through the
agency of Jesus." Logically the left side of ". . . Those things that were
brought into existence. . ." can be broken into two categories: either
the thing was made through Jesus or it was made but not through the agency
of Jesus, that is, it was made apart from Jesus. There are no other categories,
everything that has ever existed belongs on one of these three lists.

Everything that has ever existed . . . (can be put into 3 categories according to John
1:1-3) . . .

Those things that were brought into existence . . .

. . . everything else . . . (the things that have always existed)

(3)

God the Father

Holy Spirit

The Word <== ?

. . . through the agency of Jesus . . . or
(1)

All Things . . .

stars and planets

angels

humans

living things

etc.

. . . not through the agency of Jesus
(2)

Not even one thing(John 1:3)

In which category does the Word, Jesus, belong?

Next, turn to John 1:3 where John comments on two of the three
lists. There John says:

"Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made
that
has been made." NIV (Some scholars think this last phrase belongs
with the next verse, but either way, the point will be the same.) Or

"All things came into being through him, and without him not one
thing came into being." NRSV

Let's examine the first phrase. "All things came into being through him"

Sometimes in Scripture the word "all" does not mean all things that
have ever existed, sometimes it means 'all the things' understood
in the immediate context of the discussion or all things but with some
obvious exceptions. Here it might not be obvious what "all things" refers
to but it would seem that it would exclude any thing that that any reader
would naturally believe had always existed. The Jewish reader of the first
century would immediately assume that the Creator was not one of those
things that came into being, since he always existed (Psalm
90:2; 93:2). So we might
expect further clarification from John as to the identity of "all things".

Now examine the next phrase: "without him not one thing came
into being". This is essentially saying the same thing as the first phrase.
In mathematics the study called "set theory" would say the first phrase
describes the set of "all things" and that they came into existence through
him - referring to the Word of John 1:1,2. What is implied is that the
Word did not bring about his own existence so the Word is not one of the
"all things". The second phrase speaks of the complement of the first set,
namely, that of that same set of "all things" the subset of items that
came into being "without him", that is, without the agency of the Word,
has zero elements. They are mathematically equivalent. So why repeat the
same point? It would appear that John wanted to emphasize the point and
make clear that there was no overlooked exception to this nor was this
imprecise casual speech. To further emphasize the point, if as some scholars
believe, the next phrase ("that has been made") modifies the subject "all
things", then even our initial assumption, that "all things" excludes uncreated
things, is an unnecessary assumption, nothing is left to guesswork. John
is saying that all uncreated things came into being through the agency
of the Word.

Another point of the phrase "without him not one thing came into
being" is of interest. The Greek for "not one thing" is literally "not not"
and is an emphatic "not".
It means that no thing, not one thing, ZERO items are meant.
In Greek the reference to "not one thing" is emphatic. It means
zero,
there are no exceptions. There are no objects in this category
Again this emphasizes that the reader should not consider that there might
be even one exception two what is said. Especially when you note that in
the context it mentions God and the Word and "all things", so that if there
were some unmentioned exception, it would have to be some thing outside
of these and something obvious to the reader.

So could the Word be an exception to the doubly emphasized statement
that not one thing came into existence apart from the Word's agency? Since
this passage is primarily an exposition about the Word, it does not seem
likely that the writer would leave such a significant issue out of the
discussion as if it were obvious to the reader. There does not seem any
room for an exception. It would be stretching it to say that John really
meant "All things except those obvious things unmentioned here came into
being through the Word, and without him not one thing came into being except
of course the one unmentioned created thing.

Now compare this with our list .The first phrase ("All things came into
being through him") in this verse addresses our left-most list. It shows
that all things that were ever made (or "came into being"), came through
Jesus and therefore should be listed on the first list. So write the words
"All things" on this list. Then add as examples "stars
and planets, angels, humans, living things, etc."

This alone would imply that the second list, those things made apart
from the agency of Jesus, is an empty list. But could there be an exception?
Are there things that were made by the Father apart from any action of
the Son?

John next says "without him not one thing came into being." John
is specifically addressing the category of those things that came into
being (or were made) but without the agency of the Word. He comments that
in this category there is "not one thing."
So on your middle list write the words "not even
one thing." Reaffirm the point by reading the three titles together:
"Everything that has ever existed . . . those things
that were brought into existence. . . (but) not through the agency
of Jesus" and that according to John 1:3 this list contains "not
even one thing."

Now fill in the rest of the paper by deciding where to list "The Father."
Since the Father has always existed, he is from eternity, list "the
Father" on the right-most list. Next, decide where the Holy Spirit
should be listed. Did Jesus bring the Holy Spirit into existence? Scripture
says the Spirit was in the beginning with God (Genesis
1:1,2). So add the "Holy Spirit" to the
right-most list.

Now for the key concern. Decide where Jesus should be listed. Can he
be on the first list of those things made by Jesus? Did Jesus make himself,
did he bring himself into existence? No, that is logically impossible.
So he cannot be on the left list. What about the middle list? Jesus cannot
be added to the middle list for John 1:3 insists "not one thing" can be
listed there. Therefore, the only place Jesus can be listed is on the right
side as one of those things that has always existed!

2 Corinthians 3:18
(But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of
the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to
glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.) (And we, who with unveiled
faces all reflect [1] the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his
likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who
is the Spirit. )
Joshua 22:22 (The Mighty
One, God, the LORD, the Mighty One, God, the LORD! He knows,
and may Israel itself know. If it was in rebellion, or if in an unfaithful
act against the LORD do not save us this day!)
2 Kings 19:15 (Hezekiah
prayed before the LORD and said, "O LORD, the God of Israel, who
are enthroned above the cherubim, You are the God, You alone,
of all the kingdoms of the earth. You have made heaven and earth.)
Nehemiah 9:6 (You
alone are the LORD. You have madethe heavens, The heaven
of heavens with all their host, The earth and all that is on it,
The
seas and all that is in them. You give life to all of them And
the heavenly host bows down before You. )

Although this simple presentation does not fully prove that the Holy
Spirit is a person, we must admit there are three items on the list of
things that always existed. All three were involved in creation, including
the Holy Spirit (Psalm 104:30).
Yet Isaiah 44:24 and Malachi
2:10 say only ONE God made the universe, all by himself. Thus we have
three entities, but ONE God.

Now for a more in-depth explanation . . .

Evidence for Jesus' Deity in the book of Hebrews

Consider the situation of a first-century Jew who was curious about whom
Jesus was and wanted a description of this new Christian religion in language
that incorporates Jewish beliefs and heritage. Where could he go for that
information? Primarily, in what ONE book of the Bible should he look? The
answer is simple. He should read the book "to the Hebrews."

Hebrews 1: . . .

" 1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets
in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has
spoken to us in His Son, . . ."

The Hebrew Scriptures were revealed somewhat through angels but mostly
through imperfect human agents. Now this verse introduces us to someone
called the "Son." Who is he? Can he be described in terms already familiar
to the Jewish believer? Will the Son be described as a human, a prophet,
as an angel or what?

" Hebrews 1:2 . . .whom He appointed heir of all things,
through whom also He made the world."

This translation says the Son made the "world" but the word is plural in
Greek. This emphasizes that he made everything that was ever made, as we
saw in John 1:3.

This would probably cause a devout Jew a little puzzlement. Was there
anyone in the Hebrew scriptures revealed to have shared in making the universe?
Who could this be? Angels, also called sons of God (Job
1:6; 2:1; Psalm
29:1; 89:5-7), cannot
do what God can do. They did not participate in making the universe. They
were part of the creation:

Deuteronomy 3 "
24
'My Lord Yahweh,' I said, 'now that you have begun to reveal your greatness
and
your power to your servant with
works and mighty deeds no God in heaven
or on earth can rival" (NJB)

Psalm 86 " 8 among
the gods there is none to compare with you, no great deeds to compare with
yours. 10 For you are great and do marvelous deeds, you,
God, and none other." (NJB)

Isaiah 44 " 24
Thus says Yahweh, your redeemer, he who formed you in the womb: I, Yahweh,
have made all things, I alone spread out the heavens. When I hammered the
earth into shape, who was with me?" (NJB)

Isaiah 45 " 18
For thus says Yahweh, the Creator of the heavens - he is God, who
shaped the earth and made it, who set it firm; he did not create it to
be chaos, he formed it to be lived in: I am Yahweh, and there is no
other. 21 . . . Who foretold this in the past, who revealed
it long ago? Was it not I, Yahweh? There is no other god except me,
no saving God, no Saviour except me!22 Turn to me and you
will be saved, all you ends of the earth, for I am God, and there is
no other." (NJB)

So how many Gods made the universe? One or two? A Jew would answer "One!
,there is no other."

Notice what Jesus' Jewish disciples believed. . .

Acts 4 " 24
When they heard it, they raised their voices together to God and
said, 'Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth, the sea, and
everything in them," (NRSV)

Acts 17 " 24 The
God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven
and earth . . ." (Compare Acts
10:36 where Jesus is "Lord of all.")

Revelation 14 " 7
and he said with a loud voice, 'Fear
God, and give Him glory,
because the hour of His judgment has come; and
worship Him who made
the heaven and the earth and sea and springs of waters.' "

Only ONE God made the universe and He is to be glorified and worshiped
because of it! Who is this? If God made the universe by himself and no
other God can do what He can do, who is this Son that was used to make
the universe? Is He to be glorified and worshiped too? Will the rest of
the book to the Hebrews answer this? Will it name someone that has already
been revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures as this Son that made the universe?

So who is it that is the radiance of the glory of God himself? Is it
really true that God would not share his glory with another? While in a
sense God later gives some glory to Spirit-begotten Christians (John
17:22), here in Isaiah the glory belongs to God and no other.

Consider another passage where Isaiah speaks of Yahweh's glory. While
reading this, ask yourself "Are Isaiah 42:8 and 48:11 true here? Is God's
glory being shared with another God? How many glories are mentioned here?"

Isaiah 6: "
1
In the year of King Uzziah's death I saw the Lord sitting on a throne,
lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple. 2
Seraphim stood above Him, . . . 3 And one called out to another
and said, 'Holy, Holy, Holy, is the LORD (Yahweh) of hosts, The
whole earth is full of His glory.' . . . 5 Then I said,
'Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I
live among a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King,
the LORD (Yahweh) of hosts.'
8 Then I heard the voice of
the Lord, saying, 'Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?'
Then I said, Here am I. Send me!'
9 He said, Go, and tell this
people: "Keep on listening, but do not perceive; Keep on looking, but
do not understand."
10 "Render the hearts of this people
insensitive, Their ears dull, And their eyes dim, Otherwise they might
see with their eyes, Hear with their ears, Understand with their hearts,
And return and be healed." "

Well, how many glories did you see? Did you see the glory of anyone
else described here? Did you see more than one person mentioned? Did Yahweh
share his glory with any of those persons? Now compare . . .

John 12:36-43: " 36
'While you have the Light, believe in the Light, so that you may become
sons of Light.' These things Jesus spoke, and He went away and hid
Himself from them. 37 But though
He had performed so many
signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him. 38
This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke
[in Isaiah 53:1]: 'Lord,
who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?'
39
For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, 40
[in Isaiah 6:10] 'He has blinded their eyes and he hardened their
heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their
heart, and be converted and I heal them.'
41 These things Isaiah
said because
he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him. 42
Nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in Him, but
because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him, for fear that they
would be put out of the synagogue; 43 for they loved the approval
of men rather than the approval of God."

From the context it is clear that this is referring to Jesus, the Son
of God, the one that many would not believe. Yet John quotes Isaiah 6:10
(in John 12:40) and then explains that Isaiah saw the glory of the Son
of God! So how many glories did Isaiah see? Did Isaiah see two glories?
The account said Isaiah "saw the Lord. . . . The whole earth is full of
His
glory." Isaiah "heard the voice of the Lord (Yahweh), saying, 'Whom
shall I send, and who will go for Us?' There was only ONE
glory mentioned, one voice, one speaker, one sender yet Isaiah would be
going for "Us." (Note also that the Holy Spirit is credited with doing
the speaking - see Acts 28:25-27.)
So this glory was being shared by another! If this other person sharing
God's glory was an angel or a second god, would that not contradict Isaiah
42:8 and 48:11? Then
whose glory did Isaiah see - Jesus' or Yahweh's? Did he see the glory of
one God or two? The only answer that fits the claims in Isaiah, John and
Acts
28:25-27 is that Isaiah saw Yahweh and His glory and His voice, yet
he was looking at the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Thus the angels
said "Holy, Holy, Holy, [three times] is the LORD (Yahweh) of hosts."

continuing with Hebrews 1:3 . . .

". . . and the exact representation of His nature,"

As a side reference, this thought is echoed in . . .

Philippians 2:3,5,6,8
" 3 Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility
of mind let each of you regard one another as more important than himself;
5
Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6
who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality
with God a thing to be grasped, 8 . . . He humbled Himself .
. ." (Although translations differ over how the end of this verse should
be translated they agree on the first part saying that Jesus, while in
heaven, existed in God's form.)

Parallel to Hebrews 1:3 this says Jesus had the "form" of God. If we
could see Jesus in His heavenly form we would have to say he had the form
of God, the exact representation of God's nature. Jesus looks just like
God!

But there is more that can be learned from this passage. Paul points
to the relationship between Jesus and His Father and says that Jesus' attitude
should be ours. He states that "although He existed in the form of God
. . . He humbled Himself." The first phrase refers to Jesus' nature, His
heavenly appearance. The second phrase refers to Jesus' position. Paul
reasons that our Leader, Christ, had a nature deserving of stature but
chose a position that was unexpected, a humble position that did not fit
his "form." If the attitude that Jesus adopted was actually expected then
Paul's whole reasoning looses its force. Paul's intent is to convince Christians
to adopt an attitude that was not natural for them, one that was unexpected.

For Paul's reasoning to be convincing and applicable, there must be
a parallel situation between Jesus and His Father and between Christians
in the congregation. The Christian reading this passage would have to see
the extent of Jesus' humility in contrast to His relationship to His Father.
The implication is that Jesus truly had the nature of His Father just as
Christians all have the same basic human nature. And just as we might expect
Jesus to maintain a position that fit his nature, humans usually behave
in a manner fitting their view of being equal to each other. But Paul points
out that Jesus did not grasp a position of equality to His Father, a position
that we would reasonably expect Him to grasp based on his "form." Instead
He willingly accepted a position of humility, below his nature. Likewise,
Paul reasons that humans should do the same. Even though they are all equal
in nature, they should each choose a position of humility in relation to
others.

In brief, Paul reasons that even though Jesus had a nature completely
equal to God, he chose a relationship of submission. Likewise, Christians
are all equal in basic human nature but they should all adopt the attitude
of Jesus and be submissive to one another.

Another verse comments on Jesus' form or appearance:

John 14 " 9
Jesus said to him, 'Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not
come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can
you say, "Show us the Father?"' "

Could this be saying that Jesus is the Father and God is really
only one person? Then this would be strange since the first few verses
of Hebrews says God spoke through the Son and made the universe through
the Him. That makes a distinction between the Son and someone else.

So we must conclude that the Son has God's appearance; he looks exactly
like God even in his nature. But in the Jewish mind, who could look exactly
like God? Do angels look like God? Is there another God that looks exactly
like God? Here is another puzzle for the Hebrew who is trying to understand
the Son in terms of the Hebrew Scriptures:

Psalm 89 " 6
For who in the skies above can compare with the LORD (Yahweh)? Who
is like the LORD (Yahweh) among the heavenly beings? 7 In
the council of the holy ones God is greatly feared; he is more awesome
than all who surround him. 8 O LORD (Yahweh) God Almighty,
who is like you? You are mighty, O LORD (Yahweh), and your faithfulness
surrounds you. 9You rule over the surging sea; when its
waves mount up, you still them. " (NIV) [What would a Jew that
was familiar with this verse think of the account in Matthew
8:24-27 (Mark 4:35-41;
Luke
8:22-25)?]

Note that this implies that the "heavenly beings" of verse six are the
ones who are around him in verse seven. So even the angels that are around
Yahweh can not compare with Him. Then WHO is the Son that is the radiance
of God's glory and "the exact representation of His nature"?

1 Kings 8: "
23
He said, 'O LORD (Yahweh), the God of Israel, there is no God
like You in heaven above or on earth beneath, keeping covenant and
showing loving kindness to Your servants who walk before You with all their
heart' " (2 Chronicles
6:14 reads the same.)

Isaiah 46: "
5
'To whom would you liken Me And make Me equal and compare Me, That we would
be alike? 9 Remember the former things long past, For I am
God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me."

Would a Jew familiar with these texts conclude that the Son, the one
who is "the exact representation of His nature," must be an angel or a
second and distinct God? No, for there is no other god or angel that can
be compared to the One True God. Just who is this that is being describing
here?

continuing with Hebrews 1:3

". . . and upholds all things by the word of His power."

Again, as we saw in verse two, the Son can do what God can. But who can
do the works of God? WHO sustains the universe? Psalm 148 answers:

Psalm 148 " 5 Let them praise the name of the LORD (Yahweh),
For He commanded and they were created. 6He has also established
them forever and ever; He has made a decree which will not pass away.
"

Since Yahweh 'established the universe for ever and ever' and the Son
"upholds all things", how can it be said that no one can compare with Yahweh?
The only conclusion is that the Son is the same Deity as Yahweh. Just as
Adam and Eve are the one human flesh, the one humanity, that produced Cain;
Yahweh (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) are the one Deity that created the
universe.

continuing with Hebrews 1:3 . . .

". . . When He had made purification of sins,"

How would a first-century Jew react to this claim that the Son removed
sins? The same situation occurred at Mark 2:1-12 (Luke 5:18-26) where Jesus
showed he had the authority to forgive sins before his death (Mark
2:10; Luke 5:24). The Jews replied:

(Mark 2:7) "Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who
can forgive sins but God alone? " or (Luke 5:21) "The scribes and the Pharisees
began to reason, saying, 'Who is this man who speaks blasphemies? Who can
forgive sins, but God alone?' "

Their reaction to Jesus saying that someone, other than God, removed sin
was blasphemy! So, would not a Hebrew, reading this book written to the
Hebrews, conclude the same thing that only God can forgive sins? Or would
he say, 'Of course, the Son must be a second God (or an angel), that made
the universe, does everything God does, looks exactly like God, has the
glory of God, has the power of God, sustains the universe and forgives
sins'?

and the rest of Hebrews 1:3 . . .

"He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,"

If the reader of Hebrews understands that the Son has the nature of the
one true God, might he then conclude that the Son must also be the same
person as the Father? Absolutely not, for the Son sits at His Father's
right hand just as Psalm 110:1 says.

Psalm 110:1 "The LORD (Yahweh) says to my Lord: 'Sit at My right hand
Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.' "

That this verse is referring to the Father speaking to the Son can be
seen in several verses (Matthew 26:64; Acts 2:34-36; 1 Corinthians 15:25-27;
Ephesians 1:20,22; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 1:13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Peter
3:22). It appears that Hebrews 1:3 is a reference to Psalm 110:1 as well.
If Yahweh is speaking to the Lord Jesus and tells Him that He, the Son,
will sit at Yahweh's right hand, how can they both be the same person?

Up to this point in Hebrews 1:3 the Son has been compared with God.
Would you say that the comparisons show the Son to be different, somewhat
similar or exactly like God? As we continue reading we will see how the
Son is compared with angels. Will we find that the writer of Hebrews identifies
the Son with some special angel revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures? No.
From this point on we will see the Son contrasted with angels and
shown to be VERY different. If the Son is to be identified with some Old
Testament angel, then this is THE place to show it so that our Jewish reader
of this book to the Hebrews will understand in familiar terms exactly who
the Son is.

Continuing with the thought of the Son being placed at the right hand
of the Father . . .

" Hebrews 1:4 having become as much better than the angels,
as He has inherited a more excellent name than they."

This is echoed in . . . 1 Peter 3 " 22 who is at the right hand
of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers
had been subjected to Him."

We learn from Hebrews 2:9,17 that the Son had to take on the nature
of humans and become, temporarily, lower than angels. However, after his
resurrection he was exalted to heaven, and received a position superior
to that of angels (compare John 17:5). He received another superior name,
the "only-begotten Son," which had its fullest meaning after his resurrection
(Romans 1:3,4; Acts 13:33).

" Hebrews 1:5 "For to which of the angels did He ever say,
'Thou art My Son, Today I have begotten Thee'? And again, 'I will be a
Father to Him, And He shall be a Son to Me'?"

There are two Old Testament references here, the first is from Psalm 2:7
(meant to apply to Jesus as at Acts 13:33 and Hebrews 5:5), and the second
is from 2 Samuel 7:14 (initially referring to Solomon). These are not addressed
to an angel and there is no Old Testament verse anywhere where God said
to any angel 'You are my son, I have begotten you.' This verse is contrasting
the Son from angels, not likening him to them.

Does the fact that the Son is said to be "begotten" mean that he was
born, brought into existence? Does the term "begotten" refer to some time
in the past when the Son began his existence? No, for the day he was "begotten"
was the day of his exaltation after his resurrection (Hebrews 5:5; Acts
13:33), the day he received His new role as High Priest and Redeemer.

" Hebrews 1:6 And when He again brings the firstborn into
the world, He says, 'And let all the angels of God worship Him.' "

The Son is called the "firstborn" here. Does this not indicate, like the
reference to being "begotten", that the Son had a literal heavenly birth
and came into existence at some point? Is this not the primary meaning
of the term "firstborn"? We can discover the meaning by examining how it
is use elsewhere in the book of Hebrews. In Hebrews 12:23 the title "firstborn"
is in the plural form and is applied to all born-again Christians.
Did all Christians begin their existence at the same time as the
first things God created? No. The primary meaning of "firstborn" here emphasizes
'first in priority' rather than 'first in sequence'. Therefore it would
be natural for "firstborn" at Hebrews 1:6 to refer to the day when the
Son became "begotten" and exalted to the right hand of God, a place of
primacy.

Hebrews 1:6 is similar to Psalm 148:2 where the angels praise God. It
could be considered a little like Daniel 7:14 where all people are to serve
the "son of man" (meaning Jesus). It is possibly a quotation from Psalm
97:7, which is very close when viewed in the Greek Septuagint (abbreviated
LXX, the Greek Old Testament used by early Christians and some Jews). However,
it is closest to Deuteronomy 32:43 that reads (only in the LXX!):

"Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship
him; rejoice ye Gentiles, with his people, and let all the sons of
God strengthen themselves in him; for he will avenge the blood of his sons,
and he will render vengeance, and recompense justice to his enemies, and
will reward them that hate him; and the Lord shall purge the land of his
people."

Reflect on this point: The Old Testament, either Psalm 97:7 (LXX) or Deuteronomy
32:43 (LXX), describes the angels giving homage to God. This is, of course,
because God is the Creator and is higher than all His created angels. Yet
in Hebrews 1:6 the writer quotes this same passage and applies it to the
relationship between the angels and the Son. Again, this contrasts
angels from the Son rather than comparing them as equal or even similar.

Further, note the issue of propriety of rendering this homage to the
Son. The Hebrew word that appears in Psalm 97:7 also appears in these two
verses in Exodus:

Exodus 20 (from the Ten Commandments): " 3 You shall have
no
other gods before Me. 5 You shall not worship them or serve
them; for I, the LORD (Yahweh) your God, am a jealous God, visiting the
iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations
of those who hate Me"

Exodus 34 " 14-- for you shall not worship any other god,
for the LORD (Yahweh), whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God -- "

How can this form of honor, which is not supposed to be given to any
other God, be given to the Son? What is the point that the writer of Hebrews
is trying to make? Here in Hebrews 1:6 he is writing to Jews and describing
just who the Son is in terms of the Jewish Scriptures. He selects an Old
Testament passage that describes the angels bowing to Yahweh. A
Jew would, of course, know the Law and that it is wrong to give this to
any other God. So what would a Jew conclude from reading this? Would he
conclude: 'Since the Son appropriately receives worship from angels, he
must be a second God'?

Is Hebrews 1:6 the only place that shows Jesus receiving worship? No,
the same Greek word that appears in Hebrews 1:6 also appears in Matthew
28:9 and Revelation 5:14; 14:7.

Matthew 28 " 9 And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them.
And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him."

Revelation 5 " 13 And every created thing which is in heaven
and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in
them, I heard saying, 'To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb,
be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.'
14
And the four living creatures kept saying, 'Amen.' And the elders fell
down and worshiped."

Revelation 14 " 7 And he said with a loud voice, 'Fear God,
and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come; and
worship
Him who made the heaven and the earth and sea and springs of waters.'
"

In Revelation 5:13 we see every living creature giving "glory" to both
the Father and the Son. Yet Isaiah 42:8 and 48:11 say Yahweh will not share
his glory with any other God. Is this a contradiction? If the Son is a
distinct God from Yahweh, why is there no distinction made between what
is being given to the One on the throne (the Father) and what is given
to the Lamb (Jesus)? Also of interest, while every living creature is here
giving these praises to both the Father and Son without distinction, the
elders "worshiped." Who is being worshiped? Likewise the one who made the
universe is worshiped in Revelation 14:7. But according to Hebrews 1:2,10-12
the Son made the universe.

While it is true that "worship" (Greek: proskyneo) is biblically given
to persons other than God (Revelation 3:9; and in the LXX: Exodus 18:7;
1 Kings 1:23) it is always given to someone in a higher position. Giving
a relative honor to a patriarch or king would be appropriate for a subordinate.
But giving such honor to someone that was a competitor with the True God
would be wrong (Exodus 20:5).

Likewise giving worship to someone that was a subordinate would be inappropriate.
This would explain why it was wrong for John to give worship to an angel
on two occasions (Revelation 19:10; 22:8,9). John was probably awestruck
by his vision and felt compelled to worship the messenger but he needed
to realize that angels are subordinates to those who are born-again (1
Corinthians 6:2,3). Because of John's adoption as a son of God (John 1:12)
the only one he should worship is God.

So what does this imply about Hebrews 1:6? That worship (proskyneo)
can be properly given if the recipient is truly superior and is not a second
God. So who can angels worship? The Old Testament verse that Hebrews 1:6
is taken from indicates that the object of their worship is God. Who can
Christians worship? In Revelation 19:10 and 22:8,9 the angel answers that
it is only God. But who did the disciples worship in Matthew 28:9? Jesus.
Who did the elders worship prophetically in Revelation 5:13,14? The One
on the throne and the Lamb (Jesus).

they will then assert that only the One God receives latreuo.
However,
see LXX (Rahlfs - Septuaginta) at Daniel 7:13,14 - then compare
Dan 6:26; 7:27 (English).

Continuing with Hebrews 1:7-9 . . .

" 7 And of the angels He says, [Psalm 104:4] Who makes His
angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire.' 8 But of the
Son He says, [Psalm 45:6,7] 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and
the righteous scepter is the scepter of his (or "your") kingdom. 9
You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, your
God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your companions.'
"

Again, here is another contrast between angels and the Son. Angels are
described in verse 7 as public ministers but in verses 8 and 9 the Son
is King.

Some translations, like the NAS quoted here, even refer to the
Son as "O God."

As a side note, some translations like the New Jerusalem Bible
or the Revised Standard Version (in the footnote) render verse 8
differently. Instead of saying "Your throne, O God" or "O God, your throne
. . . " they will read "God is your throne" or "Your throne is God". They
do this for grammatical reasons. But the question becomes, if this reading
is preferred over "O God, your throne . . ." what does it mean to say that
"God is your throne"? Does that make any sense? Can we picture what that
means? How does it fit into the flow of logic here in Hebrews with the
numerous contrasts between the Son and the angels set against as many statements
likening the Son to God? The flow of logic is much more evident with the
two contrasting statements: "angels . . . ministers a flame of fire" as
compared to "the Son . . . O God". It would seem that the reading "Your
throne, O God, . . ." is preferable.

Verse nine says that God is "your" God, that is, the Son's God. What
does this imply? It shows that the Son is not the same person as the Father
who anointed him and the Father is the head over the Son. The Biblical
illustration that helps to understand this is to remember how Adam was
the head over Eve even though they were "one flesh"?

Does not the term "companions" in verse nine mean that the Son fellowshipped
with a class of created beings and therefore must be one of them? No. This
cannot be justified any more than saying that because God has intimate
association with angels (see Psalm 89:6,7 quoted above) that therefore
he is one of them. Likewise the similar statement in Psalm 97:9 where it
says God is exalted above all other Gods (probably referring to angels,
see Psalm 8:5 & Hebrews 2:7,9) does not imply that His exaltation is
a promotion from angelhood to Godhood.. Also note that the same Greek word
for "companions" appears in Hebrews 6:4 where it discusses those humans
who at one time had been companions with God's Holy Spirit but had fallen
away. This certainly does not mean that those humans were from the same
class of being as the Holy Spirit. So, no, this verse does not suggest
that the Son is of the same class of being as his companions. (It is also
interesting to consider how a person can have the Holy Spirit as a companion.
If the Holy Spirit were not a person, how could one be a companion of the
Spirit?)

"Hebrews 1:10-12 And, 'You, Lord, in the beginning laid
the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands;
11 they will perish, but you remain; and they all will become old like
a garment, 12 And like a mantle you will roll them up; like a garment they
will also be changed. But you are the same, and your years will not come
to an end.' "

What would a Jew conclude from this? Another puzzle. For this is a quotation
from Psalm 102:25-27:

Psalm 102 "1 Hear my prayer, O LORD (Yahweh)! And
let my cry for help come to You. . . . 24 I say, 'O my God,
do not take me away in the midst of my days, Your years are throughout
all generations. 25 Of old You founded the earth, And the heavens are
the work of Your hands. 26 Even they will perish, but You
endure; And all of them will wear out like a garment; Like clothing You
will change them and they will be changed. 27 But You are the
same, And Your years will not come to an end.' "

Here is a passage from the old testament addressed to Yahweh, "my God,"
and gives Him credit for making the universe. However, in the book of Hebrews,
when the writer wants to describe to a Hebrew clearly who the Son is, does
he choose passages that originally apply to angels or an archangel? No!
He chooses passages addressed to Yahweh that describe actions understood
to apply ONLY to Him (Isaiah 44:24) and then applies them to the Son! What
will this Jew think when he reads further into the book of Hebrews . .
.

Hebrews 3 " 4 For every house is built by someone, but the
builder of all things is God."

So how will this Jew answer the question: 'According to this book, who
constructed the universe?' Hebrews 1:2 says that the Son made all the worlds.
Hebrews 1:10-12 quotes a verse addressed to Yahweh and applies it to the
Son to show that the Son made all things. Next Hebrews 3:4 says God
made
all things. So what is the message here? The purpose of this part of Hebrews
is to teach a Jew exactly who Jesus is. If Jesus were an angel why does
this book not simply say that? Why does this book repeatedly take attributes
that belong to God and apply them to the Son?

One of the things constructed by God is mentioned at Genesis 1:26:

" 26 Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image,
according to Our likeness; . . .' "

Notice that there are at least two persons involved in this making of
man and yet there is only ONE image. It does not say man was made in our
'images' or in our likenesses'. Is there any
angel that even looks like God? Earlier we saw that the Bible clearly teaches
that no angel looks like God. So was man made in the image of God alone
or in the image of an angel too? In this text we have found the concept
of several spiritual persons with only one image, one likeness, one nature,
one essence.

Continuing in Hebrews . . .

" Hebrews 1:13-14 But to which of the angels has He ever
said, [Psalm 110:1] 'Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies a
footstool for your feet'? 14 Are they not all ministering spirits,
sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation?"

Then another rhetorical question is asked, "to which of the angels has
He ever said?" Again the answer is 'None'. Verse fourteen affirms this
by showing that while the Son is at the right hand of God and his enemies
will be a stool for his feet, ALL angels are just ministers (similar to
Hebrews 1:7). If ALL angels are ministers and here contrasted with the
Son, how could the Son be an angel?

So to summarize so far, the Son is repeatedly shown to be different
from angels (Hebrews 1:4,5,6,7,8,13,14) and at the same time is shown to
be like God in the essential attributes (Hebrews 1:2,3,6,10-12). Will we
find something in Hebrews chapter 2 that will identify this Son as an angel
or archangel?

" Hebrews 2:1-4 For this reason we must pay much closer
attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it.
2
For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression
and disobedience received a just penalty, 3 how will we escape
if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through
the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, 4 God also
testifying with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles
and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will."

What is the point here? Since a Jew realizes that the Old Testament words
spoken by angels are absolutely firm and reliable, then all the words spoken
by the "Lord" (the Son) must be even stronger and we need to pay much closer
attention to them. Here is another contrast between the words spoken by
angels (or even an archangel) and the words spoken by the Lord Jesus.

If the reader was still pondering whether the Son, sitting at the Father's
right hand, waiting for the earth to be put at is feet (Hebrews 1:3,8,13;
Psalm 110:1), was an angel or not, the next verse definitively answers
that issue. For if the Son was some kind of an angel, then this would mean
that one day the earth would be in subjection to that angel. But . . .

" Hebrews 2:5 For He did not subject to angels the world
to come, concerning which we are speaking."

So is there any way that the Son could be an angel or archangel? Is that
what a first-century Hebrew would have concluded from reading all this?

" Hebrews 2:6-9 But one has testified somewhere, [Psalm
8:4-6] saying, 'What is man, that you remember him? Or the son of man,
that you are concerned about him? 7 You have made him for a
little while lower than the angels; You have crowned him with glory and
honor, and have appointed him over the works of Your hands; 8
You have put all things in subjection under His feet.' For in subjecting
all things to him, He left nothing that is not subject to him. But now
we do not yet see all things subjected to him. 9 But we do see
Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus,
because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that
by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone."

This is a quote from Psalm 8:4-6 and explains that Jesus who, although
temporarily made less than angels, is crowned with honor and glory. All
things, including the earth will eventually be in subjection to him. But
remember, the earth will NEVER be in subjection to an angel. Clearly the
Son cannot be an angel.

Who is this "Son"? If He cannot be an angel, is he a second God?

Jesus is called "God" in . . .

John 1 (narration by John) " 18 No one has seen God at any
time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He
has explained Him."

John 20 " 28 Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and
my
God!' " (for a parallel see Psalm 35:23)

Isaiah 9 " 6 For a child will be born to us, a son will be
given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name
will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father,
Prince of Peace. " - Yahweh is also identified as "the Mighty God" in the
next chapter of Isaiah 10:20,21.

Does this mean there are two Gods? We have already seen a few verses
in the Bible that clearly state that there is only one God that fully qualifies
to be called "God" (see the quotations above: Psalm 86:10; Isaiah 45:21,22;
Isaiah 46:9). Now consider a couple of similar verses in the New Testament:

Mark 12 " 28-32 One of the scribes came and heard them arguing,
and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, 'What commandment
is the foremost of all?' 29 Jesus answered, 'The foremost is,
"Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord;
30 And
you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your
soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength."
31
The second is this, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." There is
no other commandment greater than these.' 32 The scribe said
to Him, 'Right, Teacher; You have truly stated that "He is one, and
there is no one else besides Him." ' "

1 Timothy 1 " 17 Now to the King eternal, immortal,
invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.
"

This verse, which opens 1 Timothy, is addressed to the ONLY God and
describes him as the King, immortal and invisible. But then the book closes
with this statement . . .

1 Timothy 6 " 14 that you keep the commandment without stain
or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15
which He will bring about at the proper time -- He who is the blessed and
only
Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone
possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has
seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen."

So Paul opens his letter to Timothy describing the only God as
King, as eternal, as immortal, as invisible, deserving honor and glory,
and ending with "Amen". Then Paul closes his letter with a description
of the ONLY Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, the one alone
having immortality, who cannot be seen, deserving of honor and ending with
"Amen." Elsewhere Jesus is identified as having these attributes (John
5:26; Revelation 19:16). How many Gods does Paul believe have these attributes?

Nowhere in the Bible do we see the teaching that there are two Gods
with similar attributes, both participating in making the universe. To
the contrary, when the Bible speaks of the true God it repeatedly says
there is only one God, there is no other God that can compare, He made
the universe all by himself. Yet Hebrews chapter 1 does compare someone
to God. This person is not an angel, is called "God" in Scripture, is NOT
a second God and yet considers God to be his God.

Some would try to resolve this by saying that there are many gods in
Scripture. We saw a reference to such in Psalm 86:8. Does this mean that
we have misunderstood the many verses that say there is only ONE God? Could
Jesus be one of those other gods? If so then all those verses that say
there is only ONE God must be explained. Then we would be left with the
idea that Jesus is another God that has the same attributes as his Father.
We would have two Gods that look alike and do the same things. Is there
any scripture that says this? NO! Then how do we explain Psalm 86:8 (or
Psalm 82:1,6; 2 Corinthians 4:4) that suggests that there are other gods?

Galatians 4 " 8 However at that time, when you did not know
God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods."

So there are other gods but they are not by "nature" gods (see Galatians
2:15 and 2 Peter 1:4,
which translate the same Greek word as "nature"). They are "gods" in name
only. There is only ONE God that is by nature God. Now, based on
all the scriptures that compare the Father with his Son (such as Hebrews
1:3; Philippians 2:6), would you say that the Son does or does not have
the same nature and attributes as the Father?